MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is related to this MO question (and others as well).

Hoping that this will not turn out to be too broad, I would like to know about the 'state of the art' of:

1) The problem of classifying finite subgroups of $\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$ up to conjugacy (within $\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbb{Z})\;$). The conjugacy classes are called "arithmetic crystal classes in dimension $n$".

--

2) The problem of classifying finite subgroups of $\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$ up to conjugacy (by elements of $\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbb{Q})\;$). The conjugacy classes are called "geometric crystal classes in dimention $n$".

--

Also, a couple of more vague questions:

3) For given $n$, are the above problems 1) and 2) solvable by a (sensible) algorithm? Is the difficulty of the problems more of a computational or of a conceptual nature?

It seems that, as for the classification of lattices in Euclidean space (which seems to be related), the problem presents some unexpected patterns as the dimension changes: for example, in dimension $24$ the Leech lattice appears which enjoys some uniqueness properties and an analogous is not found in other dimensions.

4) Are the classification problems 1) and 2) more "tame" as $n$ varies?

(I set "community wiki" because questions 1) and 2) may include a reference request)

share|cite|improve this question
1  
These are had questions! You probably wan to restrict to irreducible groups in 1) and 2) (in 1) that's intended to mean ireducible as a rational linear group). Question 2) is equivalent to determining the finite subgroups of ${\rm GL}(n,\mathbb{Q})$ up to equivalence. For example, Feit determned the finite irreducible subgroups of ${\rm GL}(11,\mathbb{Q})$ prior to the classification of finite simple groups. Question 2) is more amenable to attack, at least for irreducible groups. In the irreducible case, the prime factorization of $n$ is relevant, as well as the size. It's easier for prime $n$ – Geoff Robinson Mar 21 '12 at 9:19

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.